Postmen to get chance to bite back at dangerous dogs

Postmen will be able to bring charges against the owners of dogs that attack
them under plans being considered by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary.

By Stephen Adams and Andrew Porter

4:55PM GMT 07 Mar 2010

The measure is expected to form part of a review of the much-criticised Dangerous Dogs Act, which Mr Johnson - himself a former postman - will announce on Tuesday as part of a larger speech on tackling crime.

The 1991 act made it illegal for any breed of dog to be out of control in a public place, or in a private place where it was not allowed to be.

But it does not cover the private property of the dogs' owners, such as front gardens or the homes themselves.

Mr Johnson's review will float the suggestion that it should be illegal for a dog to be dangerously out of control in any place.

It follows the death of four-year-old Liverpool boy John-Paul Massey, who was savaged at home by the family's pit-bull last November.

Related Articles

Mr Johnson once revealed that he was himself bitten twice while on his rounds as a postman, and would have been bitten a third time "had a heavily pregnant woman not rushed to my rescue".

The review will also propose new anti-social behaviour orders for owners of dogs which are persistently out of control.

A Royal Mail spokesman described the matter of postal workers being injured by dogs as "a serious issue".

In 2008/09, there were 4,810 attacks by dogs on Royal Mail staff – a rate of 92 per week – compared with 4,067 the previous year.

He said: "Some of the injuries are horrendous, with people having their fingers bitten off and needing surgery."

The Communication Workers' Union (CWU) has been running a campaign called Bite Back to give greater rights for postmen and others who risk injury by dogs in the course of their jobs.

"We have been calling for this change for many, many years," said a CWU spokesman.

"Not just postal workers, but anybody who has to work on private property as part of their job needs protecting. It is a big health and safety issue."

She thought the recent rise in the number of postal workers being attacked could be partially due to the increased popularity of so-called 'status dogs', which are trained to be aggressive.

She also welcomed the idea of ASBOs for owners of persistently out-of-control dogs.

"We have had very high level meetings with government officials and are delighted to see it as part of the consultation," she said.

It is thought that there will be an exemption so that intruders who are attacked by dogs will not be able to press charges on their owners.

The review will ask whether the list of species deemed illegal by the 1991 act should be changed.

It outlawed four species, including the pit-bull.

It is that aspect of the act which has attracted most criticism. Dog welfare campaigners say it means many perfectly safe animals are kept in confinement while their breed status is clarified.

If the proposal is simply to extend the number of illegal species it is unlikely to win many backers.

Many believe that the legislation should be fundamentally changed to focus more tightly on the owners of badly behaved dogs, rather than outlawing species.

One advocate of such an approach is Prof Sir Patrick Bateson, president of the Zoological Society of London, who published his independent inquiry into dog health and welfare in January.

He recommended: "The Dangerous Dogs Act should be amended to apply to all dogs that have been shown to be dangerous rather than to specified breeds and should address the problem of dogs being bred and reared specifically as weapons or for fighting."